A subreddit dedicated to insightful articles and thoughtful, balanced discussion about everything to do with atheism, theism, deism and religion.Please read entire posts before voting or commenting, follow reddiquette, and leave a comment for reasoning behind a downvote.

RULES FOR SUBMISSION

These apply only when submitting a post to the whole subreddit

1. Submissions should be reasonably sized

Posts under 200 characters require manual approval. You will likely be asked to improve your post.

You can add content by providing points for discussion: Asking questions, including your opinions, or requesting people's thoughts.

You may link to articles, external sites and reddit posts provided you follow rules 1 and 2. Outline points of discussion and relevancy in your submission. Quoting is useful but is not enough alone.

Promotion of websites, charities or content is allowed. If you are promoting something with much content pertaining to different topics, provide a specific piece for people to look at and make the effort to contribute yourself. You may not solely promote your own content.

"The church" is not actually a single thing. It's made up of individual people, who you are implying are ALL acting in bad faith.

This is the equivalent of when believers say that atheists just hate God. It's assuming that the other person is lying to you about their basic belief, and it's not ok to start there without some evidence.

What is to say the strategy meetings didn't happen in good faith, exactly? Who are you to assume that "strategy" doesn't mean "who do we strategically pick to do the most good in the world and further the message of Christ"?

And I ask again, how are you supporting your assertion that the cardinals are all acting in bad faith. What evidence do you have that they aren't simply acting on their earnestly held beliefs and a desire to strategically further Christ's message?

In what universe can you jump straight from "they are using strategy" to "they are using strategy for evil control rarr rarr". Just because someone is making good plays, doesn't mean they're evil.

Should I really honor you with a serious reply? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, although you've proven yourself to be a closed minded individual.

The church is, and always has been interested in three things and three things only: Propagating the church itself, power, and material wealth. And that's it.

Want proof? Here's a very abbreviated list of some of their crimes against humanity:

Rampant anti-Semitism: Simply pointing to the Jews as the Killers of Christ has done quite enough harm on its own, even though there is some debate over the authenticity of such an accusation. Not only in scripture chosen as canon by the Church Fathers are the Jews ostracized and labeled spawn of the Devil, but many of the early Church Fathers and Roman Emperors that shaped early Catholic doctrine made no bones about their personal distaste for those of the Jewish persuasion. Ancient and rampant antisemitism is rooted deeply within the very core of the church. This engrained and open disdain for Jews resulted in repeated and consistent pogroms throughout the centuries and contributed in no small way to the Holocaust of the 20th Century.

Annihilation and Persecution of other Christian sects: Theological cannibalism is no stranger to the church, not only when the other sects of Christianity had the nerve to protest the unbridled greed and corruption within the church, but from the earliest days of the church's rise to power as well.

Slavery: Although a bit schizophrenic about their stance on slavery over the centuries, official authorization in the form of Papal Bulls served to legitimize and propagate the practice of enslavement of human beings and the theft of their land, all over the world, when it served the church and the agents thereof.

World-Wide Inquisitions: Not isolated to Spain, nor even to Europe by any means, Inquisitions served to persecute, threaten, torture, kill, and at very least, ostracize, anybody that refused to conform to, or had the nerve to question, the church’s hegemony.

Spanish Inquisition: Well known yet often downplayed, the Spanish Inquisition was an extended pogrom that produced both gruesome executions and some of the most notorious psychopaths in history, all under official sanction and employment of the church, not to mention some new and exciting technology on the torture front.

Witch Hunts: Kicked off by yet another psychopathic Inquisitor and unparalleled woman-hater, and officially legitimized by Papal authority, much of what remains in our collective concept of witches and witchcraft stems from the absurdly misogynistic assertions of Kramer’s masterwork of unchecked lunacy. Although eventually banned (but remaining in print and circulation thereafter), the work was and is still arguably the single most influential document leading to the slaughter of human beings based on the hack “science” of identifying and prosecuting “witches”, the shadow of which falls upon humanity to this very day.

Abuse and trafficking of children, nonsexual: By no means limited to sexual abuse, the enslavement and trafficking of children for fun and profit has a long and sultry history within the church. This includes the rather notorious beatings children regularly receive(d) as part of their Catholic School education.

Sexual abuse of children: Where to start? The scope of this crime is well beyond this single comment, but I’ll summarize by presenting the fact that there are literally millions of victims (that we know of – there have likely been millions more over the centuries), all over the world, and the abuse was not only enabled by the church, but allowed to flourish and spread as a direct result of the archaic and unacceptable policies covered in the next point…

With the latest scandal - the unforgivable child abuse cover up - which continues unabated, they've proven that they cared about the church and the church alone at the expense of the children of the very people that support that church. They've spent millions defending their pile of money from those that have been raped, fondled, and sodomized by their clergy and spent not a fucking dime protecting those children in the first place.

The Catholic Church is the longest running criminal enterprise in the history of mankind, period.

In an argument about who is acting in good or bad faith, this list is wildly irrelevant.

You're just throwing out the usual twelve year old angry atheist bullshit and I'm trying to talk to you about respecting the fact that they honestly believe what they say, despite the results. Do you think I don't know about the things on this list? Do you think I think they're good or something?

It's like you haven't actually been following this conversation at all. You've got such a need to make it CHURCH BAD vs CHURCH GOOD that you're missing that you're arguing in bad faith and strawmanning the SHIT out of people. But by all means, continue saying that I'm the closed minded one here.

And you earned that fuck you when you edited your post after I responded to make my reply look dumb. That's sleazy as shit.

You're just throwing out the usual twelve year old angry atheist bullshit

I'm neither 12, angry, nor is any of the very skimming material I've provided "bullshit" in any way, shape, or form.

If you feel it is, you are free to challenge any single point of it or all of it.

respecting the fact that they honestly believe what they say, despite the results

Interesting that you include "despite the results".

The fact is they've had 1700+ years to learn from their mistakes, but have, as of yet, failed to do so. The child abuse cover up is simply the latest example of their desire to put the well being, wealth, and power base of their organization above all else, even the pain and suffering of others, including their own followers.

Do you think I think they're good or something?

It's obvious that you think they're honest, which is misguided enough.

you haven't actually been following this conversation at all

You responded to my comment.

And you earned that fuck you when you edited your post after I responded

I edited that comment immediately after submitting it, prior to any response from you.

My position is clear, but yours isn't so much.

I have provided proof (not all of it, by a long shot, but enough) that the church is a criminal enterprise and cares nothing for humanity. The church is the quintessential evil empire - the heartless corporate machine - that harvests the suffering of humanity to feed it's own greed. There is nothing in either the history of the church nor their current policies that would lead anybody to believe that they are either honest nor compassionate. Their charitable works comprise less than 2.7% of their expenditures, far less than even Pablo Escobar or Al Capone, for just two examples.

As for the challenge presented you - to name a greater or longer running evil that has befouled the face of the planet - you've made no attempt, which further proves that you have no basis for your position.

I have provided proof (not all of it, by a long shot, but enough) that the church is a criminal enterprise and cares nothing for humanity. The church is the quintessential evil empire - the heartless corporate machine - that harvests the suffering of humanity to feed it's....

I'm rolling my eyes so hard right now, you have no idea. Grow up.

You can't jump straight from "Does bad things" to "is quintessentially evil" with a straight face. The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to realize.

Interesting that you include "despite the results".

Yeah, it's almost like you're awful at reading comprehension and just now noticed that I never claimed the results are good. Way to spend a half dozen posts assuming things about my position.

As for the challenge presented you - to name a greater or longer running evil that has befouled the face of the planet - you've made no attempt, which further proves that you have no basis for your position.

This is a really transparent attempt to move the goalposts and it makes you look like an idiot. You're so hung up on "good" and "evil" that you can't even tell that's not what I'm talking about. And your ridiculous over the top language, "befouled the face of the planet" is laughable and makes you sound really angsty.

You are clearly unlettered, brainwashed, and lost in your own bullshit, and now you've just proven it.

You can't jump straight from "Does bad things" to "is quintessentially evil" with a straight face. The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to realize.

Thanks for the laugh, but you've still not made a point nor supported such a point.

move the goalposts

You're not paying attention boy.

I do not believe anything the church says because they are the longest running and most vile criminal enterprise on the planet. Their history is one of lies and deceit from their inception all the way up to this very day. They have zero credibility. None.

Next we'll review how to add 1+1 to come up with an educated conclusion, if you think you've advanced to that level.

You know you're in a atheist sub right? I'm guessing very few people here think the church leadership has humanity's best interests at heart, and they would be patently wrong if they did.

The figurehead for a historically evil organization is parading around Christ's message, but I have yet to see any changes inside said organization that lead me to believe anything is getting better. Missionaries continue to pollute other cultures, rapist priests still have congregations, women are still worth less than men, and intolerance is still a central cog.

And I ask again, how are you supporting your assertion that the cardinals are all acting in bad faith.

/u/ thecannon never said all cardinals are acting in bad faith. Certainly some are. Some aren't. I'm going to guess, based on thousands of years of history, that the ones in real power aren't interested in truth, justice, or reason.

I think you and I would agree that a believer and a non believer can work towards what they think is best for humanity, even if their views don't line up. As an example, despite having their caveats, if a Catholic mission ends up feeding 100 starving people, do I really need to put the fact that they have an agenda before the fact that 100 people are being fed? That's a serious question, by the way, I want you to answer it. I would rather see 100 people fed yet Christian than 100 people starving and secular/their original faith.

That's a great point actually. I suppose it is better if they're fed, regardless of the reason. I wonder about the long term effects are though. What are they telling these people? Praise white Jesus? God gave us this food to give to you in exchange for your allegiance? I honestly don't know. You could argue that dogma is the very reason (indirectly of course)they are starving, whether it's their own faith or the effect of dogmatic policies.

As opposed to what, though? I ask the same question,; long term dogma versus them starving to death now? I don't know about you, but live, yet Christian people would go a longer way towards fixing (as an example) Africa's human situation in the long run than dead and/or starving ones. Unless you can rustle up a secular program that does enough of the humanitarian work to make the Catholic Church's involvement irrelevant, I'd rather have them involved than not. I'd also like to point out that some of the Catholic schools opened up are still schools; they might be spoonfeeding them Christianity, but they do it by making them literate and teaching them some useful things. As with food, I rather have 100 literate Christian people who can do basic math than 100 illiterate people who are either secular or whatever faith they were before.

And I also want you take notice of the fact that I'm saying "secular or their previous faith"; it's not like they're forcing starving African Richard Dawkins to turn Christian for food; many of the people they help are already Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc, and even when they don't have a specific religion, it isn't like they're rational, educated, unsuperstitious people who would otherwise turn into model citizens.

It's not about like and dislike. I left the church and I don't believe God exists. There's plenty for me to dislike there. What I'm annoyed with is the tenancy of people to act like their "opposition" is just lying and doesn't really believe what they say.

It is a large organization made of people who are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, acting in honest good faith in accordance with their beliefs with the understanding that what they're doing will make the world a better place.

Now, we can argue about whether it actually will or not, but there's no basis to claim that they don't think it will or that they're purposefully evil.

Evil may occur (inasmuch as we can define "evil", right?) as an inadvertent result of their actions, and that is absolutely something that's worth discussing, but that does not make it an "evil organization" unless you want to affix that label to a large number of other historical groups.

The pope is a role model for Catholics. Even a pope that is just talking the talk is still going to have a net positive effect on the status quo. Is it perfect? Does it stop child abuse? Does it stop charity influence peddling? Does it empower women? No. It does none of those things, but what could have done those things exactly? It's not like there was any possibility that they could just say "this was all a lie, there is no god, we disband the church", and instead they chose this pope. They didn't have some better pope with a magic wand to fix everything and instead they chose this guy.

I'll take an incremental improvement when I can get one. That's how the world changes. I'll praise a net improvement when I see a net improvement, and the current pope is a net improvement.

Fair points, and I agree that incremental change is better than none at all, but what's stopping the pope from talking the big talk? He could come out and say the churches handling of the molestation issue was deplorable, among other things. He could say the churches leadership is archaic and out of touch. The best part is that Catholics by and large would agree and stand behind him in a revolution of sorts. They are leaving their church in droves.

I am not anti-religious, and I don't expect him to say "Sorry, there is no God, our bad." I would, however, like to see more than incremental change and small talk. Big talk could get that done.

Yeah I mean I'd love to see a revolution as well, but the risk of a schism is real if one tries to turn the ship too fast.

And while, as an outsider, I don't really have a stake in a non-fractured catholic church, you can see why someone who believes that it is on earth to do God's will might be nervous or conflicted about potentially damaging its credibility.

I mean, imagine you just got put in charge of the church. Even as yourself, an atheist. You've got this huge opportunity to enact change, right? How best to do so? Even as an atheist with no stake in the church, you STILL have to really consider how carefully you need to do it to actually accomplish anything. If you just decreed a bunch of changes, they'd get reversed with the next pope. You have to walk the whole church into them carefully so that the changes feel natural.

Who knows if that's what Francis is doing, but the point is that even in a best case scenario where he agrees with us (there's no way this is the case), he would STILL move very slowly out of prudence and in the interest of his changes sticking. Regardless of intent, acting slowly is the optimal play.

The people are generally trying to be good, not the Vatican. The Vatican is the one, if you remember, shuttling molesting priests around and avoiding international jurisdiction on the matter.

The Vatican has done horrible things in the past--and present, let's not forget--so I'm curious as to when you thought they magically turned good. Was it a year ago, a decade, two decades?

No, as you say the pope is just talking the talk. They have a nicer face and someone who can play the game. Nothing leads me to think they've changed. The Vatican shouldn't be praised for making hollow statements while not changing within at all.

Stop defending them just because you were a Catholic and recognize your bias. I doubt you'd offer as much charity to any other religious institution with such a colorful history and aptitude for manipulating the masses.

"The Vatican" is no more a single entity than the rest of the church. "The Vatican" is a TON of clergy with a ton of different ideas about what's best for the church, and again those people are actually human beings who believe what they say they believe and have differing ideas about what to do and how to do it.

You may disagree with them about what's best. I know I often do, but you can't pretend like they're some cackling villain without dehumanizing the people who actually make the decisions.

Stop defending them just because you were a Catholic and recognize your bias.

Look in a mirror. You should just like the tea party bitching about Obama.

I doubt you'd offer as much charity to any other religious institution with such a colorful history and aptitude for manipulating the masses.

You may disagree with them about what's best. I know I often do, but you can't pretend like they're some cackling villain without dehumanizing the people who actually make the decisions.

I'm very familiar with what the Vatican is. You could say that I disagree with child abusers and those that defend them, yes. I'm not suggesting they are cackling villains, only that they commit and have committed great atrocities.

Look in a mirror. You should just like the tea party bitching about Obama.

My point is still valid. They protect child abusers. You defend such an institution because you say there are many people involved.

I doubt you know nearly enough about me to make this claim.

It seems to be a fairly accurate assumption. The only atheists I see defend the church are those that were former Catholics.